“Only the Illinois Supreme Court can declare a statue from (the legislature) unconstitutional,” Castiglione told lawmakers Tuesday. “I heard (someone) say that after 180 days our UUW (unlawful use of weapon) statute is unconstitutional. Not so.”

“Until the Supreme Court of the United States has spoken, state courts are not precluded from exercising their own judgments on federal constitutional measures,” said Paul Castiglione, representing the Cook County state’s attorney’s office. “Because lower federal courts exercise no appellate jurisdiction over state courts, decisions of lower federal courts are not conclusive on state courts.”

“After 180 days, anyone who decided, for example, to walk down Michigan Avenue in Chicago carrying an AK-15 would be subject to arrest and prosecution for violating the [Unlawful Use of Weapons Act,]” said Cook County Assistant State’s Attorney Paul Castiglione. He said the Cook County state’s attorney’s office intends to enforce the Illinois Unlawful Use of Weapons statute, which outlaws carrying guns in public, after the deadline, unless lawmakers change it or the Illinois Supreme Court finds it unconstitutional. “The lower federal courts, either the district courts or the courts of appeal, cannot tell the Illinois Supreme court how to rule or whether or not that law is constitutional. The only court that can resolve that split is the U.S. Supreme Court.”

Sigh. Will these idiots never learn?

THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION IS THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND.

I tell you what. If we get open carry, and I could find this mythical AK-15, I'd walk right up Lake Shore Drive with it.

I doubt this President cares about protecting the rights of lawful US citizens.

Waywatcher

February 21, 2013, 08:49 PM

Well, here's a question.

Has a State ever blatantly ignored a Federal Court ruling like this?

And if so, what was the outcome?

Yes, in more recent times, Obamacare, result still unresolved.

jamesbeat

February 21, 2013, 08:58 PM

This beggars belief.

Only playing devil's advocate here, but aren't those sheriffs who say they will not enforce AWB's etc doing the same thing?

41

February 21, 2013, 09:06 PM

This beggars belief.

Only playing devil's advocate here, but aren't those sheriffs who say they will not enforce AWB's etc doing the same thing?

I don't think so. Choosing not to enforce a law, is different than enforcing an illegal law. Chicago would be falsely stripping citizens of their liberty, while the anti awb sheriffs are just turning a blind eye to the people violating the proposed "law". This law would be unconstitutional anyway, so the sheriffs would just be upholding their oath to uphold the constitution.

SharpsDressedMan

February 21, 2013, 09:08 PM

Citizens from ANYWHERE might be able to sue Chicago or obtain a restraining order from such a public statement of disregard for the law. And, it might cost them, just as some of their OTHER foolish acts have done in the past.

bushmaster1313

February 21, 2013, 09:15 PM

The then President of the United States Eisenhower send in the 101st Airbourne to protect the human rights of US citizens.

Like today, the Democrats were barring the door to the exercise of rights protected by the Constitution:

Now I've got to add an AK-15 to my list... http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/standart/facepalm.gif

.

Trent

February 21, 2013, 10:38 PM

Hey man, I feel your pain.

I'm still trying to find a Bushwhacker assault rifle and a Sig Schnauzer handgun.

I hear one of those has a "barrel shroud that goes up to your shoulder"

Trent

February 21, 2013, 10:39 PM

BTW, KDawg and Bushmaster1313, thanks for the photos.

I'd forgotten all about that.

breakingcontact

February 21, 2013, 10:46 PM

These failing cities and states just want to distract the attention away from their real problems.

Trent

February 21, 2013, 11:32 PM

These failing cities and states just want to distract the attention away from their real problems.

from their real problems ... which is failing cities and states.

(Thought I'd finish that thought for you.)

Onward Allusion

February 21, 2013, 11:39 PM

Hehe... I really hope these idiots don't comply and ignore the ruling. Can you say Constitutional Carry?

jbrown50

February 22, 2013, 07:35 AM

from their real problems ... which is failing cities and states.

(Thought I'd finish that thought for you.)
The real problem is that these corrupt government officials refuse to attack the root causes of crime, mainly because they're criminals themelves. It's easier and cheaper to enact more gun laws that only affect citizens who aren't commiting any crimes to begin with.

Klusterbuck

February 22, 2013, 09:10 AM

I wanna know if there is a problem with pigeons poopin on this statue he speaks of........

HOOfan_1

February 22, 2013, 09:19 AM

Yes. The Little Rock Nine.

and the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions which opposed the Alien and Sedition acts

and during the War of 1812 when New England states refused to contribute to the war and even started talking about seceding.

and the nullification crisis of 1832 when Andrew Jackson threatened to send troops into South Carolina

and during the Civil War when Lincoln suspended habeas corpus in Maryland

Warners

February 22, 2013, 11:45 AM

We sure are living in interesting times.

The Chicago / States Attorney stance is really disheartening.

At first I was angry, now I'm not so sure. It's actually more of a feeling of .. can't put my finger on it. Feels more like hardened determination.

We're so close, but so far.

Maybe I'll sort it out in a couple weeks.

We have 12,000+ (angry) gun owners marching on Springfield at the IGOLD rally.
I'll be there, Trent.....just got a call from Don at ISRA last night with my bus confirmation code. Trying to get my all-talk/no action gun friends to go....but you know how that goes.

Warner

Mobuck

February 22, 2013, 11:56 AM

Maybe if the one citizen exercising his rights was backed by 500 or 1000 other citizens armed to the teeth, their attitude would change. Looks like this is the only way the problem is going to be resolved.

Ragnar Danneskjold

February 22, 2013, 12:06 PM

Everyone hemming and hawing about them ignoring the Supreme Court might be in for a rude awakening in a few years. Wait until Comrade President puts in another Justice or two and then a few more gun control cases go against us. Will we then be so adamant about states following SCOTUS rulings?

HOOfan_1

February 22, 2013, 01:13 PM

Everyone hemming and hawing about them ignoring the Supreme Court might be in for a rude awakening in a few years. Wait until Comrade President puts in another Justice or two and then a few more gun control cases go against us. Will we then be so adamant about states following SCOTUS rulings?

I am not wild about following them now. I don't think 1 body, particularly an un-elected body which has no term limit, should have the last say concerning the Constitutional rights of Americans....stinks too much of oligarchy.

Deer_Freak

February 22, 2013, 01:26 PM

The thing about the whole deal is most states have a limit that one can receive in a civil suit against any government entity including the police. The city of Chicago knows they will only pay a few civil cases they maximum limit the state allows. Wheeling WV is doing the same thing for open carry. The only successful suit against Wheeling was brought about by a plaintiff that is an attorney. Chicago will use the courts to their advantage to play the same game.

traderpats

February 22, 2013, 03:16 PM

Everyone hemming and hawing about them ignoring the Supreme Court might be in for a rude awakening in a few years. Wait until Comrade President puts in another Justice or two and then a few more gun control cases go against us. Will we then be so adamant about states following SCOTUS rulings?

SCOTUS goes rogue? Meh, against all enemies both foreign AND domestic. Just sayin.....

Vang

February 22, 2013, 07:46 PM

The thing about the whole deal is most states have a limit that one can receive in a civil suit against any government entity including the police. The city of Chicago knows they will only pay a few civil cases they maximum limit the state allows. Wheeling WV is doing the same thing for open carry. The only successful suit against Wheeling was brought about by a plaintiff that is an attorney. Chicago will use the courts to their advantage to play the same game.If a cop arrests you in violation of your federal constitutional rights, you sue under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ("Every person who . . . subjects . . . any citizen of the United States . . . to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law . . . ."). You bring this suit in federal court, and there are no limits on damages.

It's also worth noting that this is why the City of Chicago's position is wrong. The first time Chicago arrests someone, a § 1983 suit will be brought. The plaintiff will ask for money and an injunction barring the City from arresting people for carrying guns. The federal court that hears this suit will be bound by the 7th Circuit's opinion. There are some other issues involved in § 1983 suits besides whether your rights were violated (and some issues of whether the plaintiff would be allowed to ask for the injunction), but Chicago is bound in federal court by the 7th Circuit's opinion just as much as they would be by the Supreme Court's opinion.

As to what would happen if you raised your 2nd Amendment claim in Illinois state court, well, why would you do that? (In practice, they can do whatever they want and appeal from the Supreme Court of Illinois can only be heard by the United States Supreme Court.)

Deanimator

February 22, 2013, 09:31 PM

When the city is sued and loses, it won't be THEIR money.

It'll be the tax money of the drooling simpletons who keep electing them... those of them that actually PAY taxes, anyway.

The only question is whether the Chicago cops will be dumb enough to actually pierce their own qualified immunity.

When Cleveland mayor Frank Jackson ordered Cleveland police to illegally enforce a state preempted "assault weapon" ban, the Cleveland police union advised its members to ignore the order lest they be sued and found civilly liable.

Of course the Chicago lodge of the FOP is notorious for having gone on National Public Radio in 1996 and demanding that those convicted of domestic violence be allowed to carry guns... but only if they're cops. Critical thinking isn't one of their strong suits...

Deanimator

February 22, 2013, 09:47 PM

The city of Chicago knows they will only pay a few civil cases they maximum limit the state allows.
Clearly you don't follow Chicago legal matters.

The last time they rolled the civil court dice, they ended up with a JUDICIAL FINDING that the Chicago PD is corrupt and maintains a "blue wall of silence". That one really left a mark.

They AREN'T, but if they were smart, they'd shut up and go back to stealing what little is left to steal in Chicago...

foghornl

February 23, 2013, 12:54 PM

In the pix that bushmaster posted, don't know who-all is in first pic, second pic is then-Gov. Orval Faubus, {unless I am grosly mistaken} who activated the Arkansas National Guard to prevent those students from entering Little Rock Central High School, in 1957 or so.

c1ogden

February 23, 2013, 08:14 PM

We have come to expect this type of malfeasance from Chicago's ultra-corrupt politicians. Hey, they don't call it Crook County for nothing!

I'm no expert but I think a few hundred Section 1983 suits against the corrupt cops and city council members should do the job. We were warned about this many times over the years, told that we could be held personally liable, civilly and criminally, if we violated anybody's civil rights, even if we were in full compliance with state laws.

42 U.S.C. § 1983
Every person who under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, Suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer's judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.